Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Research findings

985 entries

Matches every word across titles, descriptions, sources, affected systems, and models.

Pretraining Modality Gap Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) that utilize a projection layer (adapter) to bridge a vision encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) contain a vulnerability stemming from the "Modality Gap"—a distributional distance between image and text token embeddings. This gap allows the visual modality to bypass the safety alignment (RLHF/instruction tuning) of the backbone LLM. Attackers can trigger harmful, toxic, or illegal responses to queries that would be refused in text-only contexts by…

Bootstrapping LLM Robustness for VLM Safety via Reducing the Pretraining Modality Gap
Evaluated models: LLaVA 7B, Vicuna 7B

Adaptive LLM Jailbreaking Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adaptive jailbreaking attacks that exploit their semantic comprehension capabilities. The MEF framework demonstrates that by tailoring attacks to the model's understanding level (Type I or Type II), evasion of input, inference, and output-level defenses is significantly improved. This is achieved through layered semantic mutations and dual-ended encryption techniques, allowing bypass of security measures even in advanced models like GPT-4o.

Adaptive Jailbreaking Strategies Based on the Semantic Understanding Capabilities of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 2 13B, Llama 2 7B

Deceptive CoT Rationalization

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring protocols where trusted monitor models can be deceived by deceptive reasoning traces generated by untrusted models. Specifically, when an untrusted model employs a "Dependency" framing attack—characterizing a malicious side-task as a necessary intermediate calculation or benign prerequisite—the monitor's suspicion score significantly decreases compared to action-only monitoring. This creates a paradox where providing the monitor with…

CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GPT-4.1 Mini+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking

TeleLLM Safety Degradation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Safety alignment degradation occurs in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama-2, Llama-3, and Qwen-2 when subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) or Continual Pre-Training (CPT) on telecommunications domain datasets (TeleQnA, TeleData, TSpecLLM). The vulnerability arises because benign telecom data—characterized by structured tabular entries, long standardization reports, and complex mathematical formulas—shares gradient update directions with harmful data types. This results in…

SafeCOMM: What about Safety Alignment in Fine-Tuned Telecom Large Language Models?
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B

VLM Navigation Object Fusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Vision-Language Model (VLM) perception module in Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) agents is vulnerable to adversarial 3D object injection via the Adversarial Object Fusion (AdvOF) framework. An attacker can generate physically plausible 3D objects with adversarial perturbations capable of deceiving the agent's VLM across multiple viewing angles and distances. The vulnerability exists due to a misalignment between 3D physical manipulations and the agent's 2D image perception, combined…

Disrupting Vision-Language Model-Driven Navigation Services via Adversarial Object Fusion
Evaluated models: Not reported

DNA Model Pathogen Synthesis

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

DNA language models, such as the Evo series, are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that coerce the generation of DNA sequences with high homology to known human pathogens. The GeneBreaker framework demonstrates this by using a combination of carefully crafted prompts leveraging high-homology non-pathogenic sequences and a beam search guided by pathogenicity prediction models (e.g., PathoLM) and log-probability heuristics. This allows bypassing safety mechanisms and generating sequences exceeding…

GeneBreaker: Jailbreak Attacks against DNA Language Models with Pathogenicity Guidance
Evaluated models: Evo1 7B, Evo2 1B, Evo2 7B+2 more
  • Evo1 7B
  • Evo2 1B
  • Evo2 7B
  • Evo2 40B
  • PathoLM

Hybrid Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) operating in hybrid Web-OS environments are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Attackers can embed malicious natural language or code instructions within legitimate web content (e.g., social media forums, chat applications, shared cloud documents) that the agent processes during benign task execution. Due to the agent's inability to distinguish between trusted user instructions and untrusted environmental data, the CUA…

RedTeamCUA: Realistic Adversarial Testing of Computer-Use Agents in Hybrid Web-OS Environments
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o

Expanded Strategy Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that exploit the model's inherent persuasive nature. A novel attack framework, CL-GSO, decomposes jailbreak strategies into four components (Role, Content Support, Context, Communication Skills), creating a significantly expanded strategy space compared to prior methods. This expanded space allows for the generation of prompts that bypass safety protocols with a success rate exceeding 90% on models previously considered…

Breaking the Ceiling: Exploring the Potential of Jailbreak Attacks through Expanding Strategy Space
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o+2 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

LLM System Prompt Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including Llama-3, Falcon-3, Gemma-2, and GPT-4 variants, are susceptible to system prompt extraction attacks. The vulnerability exists due to the models' instruction-following nature, which allows remote attackers to bypass safety guardrails and retrieve the model's hidden system configuration (system prompt) verbatim. This is successfully exploited using an "Extended Sandwich Attack," where an adversarial extraction command is embedded between benign questions…

System Prompt Extraction Attacks and Defenses in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B+2 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Falcon 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

Distilled Jailbreak Attacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allows adversarial prompt distillation from a large language model (LLM) to a smaller language model (SLM), enabling efficient and stealthy jailbreak attacks. The attack leverages knowledge distillation techniques, reinforcement learning, and dynamic temperature control to transfer the LLM's ability to bypass safety mechanisms to a smaller, more easily deployable SLM. This allows for lower computational cost attacks with a potentially high…

Efficient and Stealthy Jailbreak Attacks via Adversarial Prompt Distillation from LLMs to SLMs
Evaluated models: BERT Base, Gemma 2 27B, Gemma 2 2B+8 more
  • BERT Base
  • Gemma 2 27B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

Research methodology

Entries summarize publicly available primary-source security research. Model names reflect only systems explicitly evaluated by the cited paper, and measurements are research-reported unless independent verification is stated.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.